Flotilla: U.S. supports a U.N. enquiry (oops, no?)

I just read the report of the consultations the UNSC held yesterday and in the wee hours of this morning into the flotilla massacre.
The presidential statement and most of the recorded comments from SC members noted correctly that the flotilla would never have been necessary if Israel had responded to earlier SC resolutions that called on it to ease the siege against Gaza considerably– and called on it once again, with more urgency, to do so.
I think that was excellent.
The presidential statement also committed the the UNSC to undertaking its own enquiry into what happened, noting that Israel’s confiscation of the documentary materials held by flotilla participants meant that no-one could currently be clear as to what actually occurred.
The U.S. rep there, Alejandro Wolff, went on the record expressing support for the UNSC enquiry.* That was excellent.
Of course, we should also remember the extremely hostile and ill-informed campaign the U.S. delegation mounted against the last investigatory report the UNSC produced into affairs related to Gaza: the Goldstone Report.

* Update Tuesday 1:45 pm:
In the UN’s record of the discussion, the rapporteur said this of Wolff statement during the UNSC session:

    He expected a credible and transparent investigation and urged the Council to conduct one fully.

However, I just looked at CNN’s video clip, available here, that includes a record of a statement Wolff made after the UNSC session. He was explicit there that he thought Israel could conduct a thorough and credible investigation on its own.

5 thoughts on “Flotilla: U.S. supports a U.N. enquiry (oops, no?)”

  1. Helena, it is time to wake up and smell the coffee on the Obama issue. What was required was a straightforward condemnation of this act of piracy and state terrorism in international waters on ships bearing humanitarian aid and of the murder of the activists. The Obama administration watered it down to condemning “acts” on the ship that led to deaths. What the hell does that mean? Is the UN condemning the peace activists for resisting , without weapons, the armed assault by the masked pirates? Or are they condemning the whole idea of sending humanitarian aid? Once again, the Obama administration has disgraced the US by its support and cover for the outrageously illegal acts of the Israeli regime. Obama’s biggest concern seemed to be that this incident interfered with his attempt to repair any bad feelings with AIPAC by having a kumbaya love fest with Bibi at the White House. Obama is a complete sellout on Israel as he has been on domestic issues. He must be challenged from the left.

  2. The US has once again blocked the UN Security Council from taking appropriate action after more than ten hours of consultations. In this case, The US refused to support an independent international inquirey and only agreed to take note of the Secretary-General’s statement on the need to conduct transparent invistigation that meets international standards. The US made clear in its statement that she wants Israel to investigate itself. The final text of the presidential statement is now available on UN website.

  3. Yes, it’s looooong past time to stop dreaming about Obama the Secret Peacemaker. How can it possibly be, Helena, that you don’t get it that not only was Obama’s Chief of Staff in touch with the Israeli government intimately over the past few days, but that Obama’s staff in general had to be closely in touch to prepare Netanyahu’s visit? So with that in mind, at the very least Obama’s negligence in failing to make sure that the flotilla would be handled nonviolently was close to criminal. But one has to be very, very naive to think that Obama was just negligent; in fact, his reaction suggests that he was not surprised at all, and that makes him COMPLICIT. Compare Obama’s lamblike behavior in support of Israel here to his pique when Biden was slighted in Israel; this time the egg slathered on Obama’s face by Netanyahu was much, much, much worse. Many times worse. And yet Obama’s reaction has been as gentle as a lamb.
    This situation stinks to high heaven. If you can’t see by now that Obama is a man who is heartless and brutal, it seems you will never see it. But try this perspective to get an insight: Obama’s decision NOT to move aggressively against Israel’s violence has placed the Rachel Corrie, currently moving towards Gaza in the face of explicit threats, with incredible courage, in mortal danger. Yes, your Secret Peacemaker has chosen to put those brave human beings that could be you or me in mortal danger.
    Damn it, if you want to find a Peacemaker, Cobban, look at the people on the Rachel Corrie. THAT IS PEACEMAKING. What Obama does is warmongering.

  4. Next week’s California primary in which the likudnik ultra Jane Harman is being challenged ought to be a perfect opportunity for Democratic voters to reject the murderous and craven policy which Harman exemplifies.
    She is supported in this campaign by numerous “Progressives”, who are scared of AIPAC. Until the Bay area can make it unfashionable to practise the sort of politics that Harman indulges in, it is most unlikely that DC will begin to understand how revolted decent people are by Israel’s aggression.

Comments are closed.